Sample Writing: Persuasive
‘It is the victims of conflict who show us what is really important.’
It’s Un-American to Condemn Kazan
How is it that a solitary choice can condemn a man to such hatred and despise? I am, of course, referring to director and
storyteller, Elia Kazan, who in decades since his decision to ‘name names’ to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, has been the pariah of Hollywood, despised by many for placing self-preservation above what many today consider to be the moral right. However, while we may demonise Kazan even today, it is important to realise that he, like the rest of us, was also a victim of the madness during those years, and that we are also partly to blame. We dealt with the conflict in absolutes, unwilling to view an opposing idea as legitimate and possibly reasonable due to the fear which clouded our judgement. As a result, we sit here today, scarred by the shame of the gruelling trials which saw reputations trashed with little evidence and huge consequences, and we must learn from those victims if we are to move forward and begin the process of reconciliation.
By looking at Kazan’s supposed betrayal, we see only a small fragment of a much larger picture, which includes the American Government’s clear abuse of their position of power. While HUAC claimed it was their ‘duty’ to investigate the communist movement in our country, it is obvious that they unfairly targeted the Hollywood motion picture industry, exposing what was viewed as ‘celebrity scandals’ in order to gain attention for their cause. From those like Kazan who fell victim to the government’s lust for power – or just plain paranoia – we as a nation can learn that what is really important is not the ability to remain in the middle ground, rather it is the ability to make a choice and stand by that choice no matter what. If grudges should be held, it should be against our government. The paranoia and ‘prodigious fear’ they generated during those years veiled by the transparently feeble excuse of protecting our country from a looming Communist threat has tarnished this once-great nation’s reputation.
As in most instances of conflict, individuals in McCarthy’s America were compelled to respond to the growing madness, the way they reacted , revealed the secrets of who they were and what made them tick. From this we can learn that making a choice, no matter what that choice is, is crucial if we are to define ourselves by our morals. Identity is an integral part of who we are, and instead of condemning those like Kazan who made a choice, we should praise them for their efforts. Like most faced with difficult decisions, either choice Kazan made he would lose. He and many others at the time were forced into making a choice between their livelihood, and their convictions, there was ‘no road between’. It was a choice that would leave them as scarred and affected as our nation today, yet unlike our nation, they made a choice and demonstrated to the world that they were not afraid to reveal who they truly were. Refusing to co-operate with the Committee would have surely meant the end of Kazan’s filmmaking career, and those closest to him know he was nothing if not a filmmaker, which is why, in the end we believe Kazan did what he did because of the more tolerable of the two alternatives that were both painful, and some may say morally wrong.
Kazan also made it clear that while de did indeed join the Communist Party, after several meetings, he was left with an ‘abiding hatred of Communist philosophy’. With this in mind it can be said that Kazan acted, in part, out of conviction. There was nothing venal about it as critics suggest. As a man who became disillusioned with Communism and then disgusted by its methods, it would have been wrong for him to have sacrificed the career he loved in defence of the very ideology he had grown to hate. Kazan is correct to value equality and individual rights, and as a nation how can we claim to fight for a democracy and the rights to exist as a nation if we do not respect Kazan’s right to have, and act on, his own opinions? We can learn from his example as a victim of a conflict to respect free will, for if we don’t are we truly any different to those who destroyed lives in the name of a cohesive and ideologically impenetrable America?
The public has always drawn for many parallels between Kazan and former friend and playwright, Arthur Miller, who unlike Kazan, refused to testify to HUAC, is seen by people to be like his ‘hero’ John Procter in his play The Crucible. However, while Miller’s willingness for self-sacrifice is commendable and demonstrated to the public what is really important in that he refused to yield to corrupt morals during the heat of battle, it is also equally as important to learn from this that not everyone responds to conflicts in the same way. A different response by Kazan, in a similar situation to Miller, does not necessarily warrant the title of ‘traitor’. Kazan is not Miller, nor is he modern America’s John Proctor, and while he may have initially had the strength to refuse to name names, he like the rest of us, fell prey to a greater power.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, if in the same situation as Kazan most would have betrayed their friends and loved ones if it meant saving themselves, for survival is always the strongest instinct. And although there will be some, like Miller and his Proctor, who are strong enough to withstand the immense heat of conflict, the majority will bend under pressure, for true heroes are rare. While it is vital to learn from people like Miller, his example showing the importance of retaining our morals in times of madness, it is equally as important to learn from victims like Kazan, who demonstrated the need to define where they stood by making a choice. We sit here today, refusing to acknowledge the great work of a Hollywood artist, demonstrating to ourselves and the world that we have not learnt from any of those examples and are therefore doomed to repeat the same mistakes when conflict is encountered once more. However, it is not too late to change, we can still learn and grow as a nation due to the victims in the 1950s who showed us what is really important. We can redeem ourselves from the guilt and shame by improving the way we deal with conflict so that we may be proud to call ourselves Americans once more.
It’s Un-American to Condemn Kazan
How is it that a solitary choice can condemn a man to such hatred and despise? I am, of course, referring to director and
storyteller, Elia Kazan, who in decades since his decision to ‘name names’ to the House of Un-American Activities Committee, has been the pariah of Hollywood, despised by many for placing self-preservation above what many today consider to be the moral right. However, while we may demonise Kazan even today, it is important to realise that he, like the rest of us, was also a victim of the madness during those years, and that we are also partly to blame. We dealt with the conflict in absolutes, unwilling to view an opposing idea as legitimate and possibly reasonable due to the fear which clouded our judgement. As a result, we sit here today, scarred by the shame of the gruelling trials which saw reputations trashed with little evidence and huge consequences, and we must learn from those victims if we are to move forward and begin the process of reconciliation.
By looking at Kazan’s supposed betrayal, we see only a small fragment of a much larger picture, which includes the American Government’s clear abuse of their position of power. While HUAC claimed it was their ‘duty’ to investigate the communist movement in our country, it is obvious that they unfairly targeted the Hollywood motion picture industry, exposing what was viewed as ‘celebrity scandals’ in order to gain attention for their cause. From those like Kazan who fell victim to the government’s lust for power – or just plain paranoia – we as a nation can learn that what is really important is not the ability to remain in the middle ground, rather it is the ability to make a choice and stand by that choice no matter what. If grudges should be held, it should be against our government. The paranoia and ‘prodigious fear’ they generated during those years veiled by the transparently feeble excuse of protecting our country from a looming Communist threat has tarnished this once-great nation’s reputation.
As in most instances of conflict, individuals in McCarthy’s America were compelled to respond to the growing madness, the way they reacted , revealed the secrets of who they were and what made them tick. From this we can learn that making a choice, no matter what that choice is, is crucial if we are to define ourselves by our morals. Identity is an integral part of who we are, and instead of condemning those like Kazan who made a choice, we should praise them for their efforts. Like most faced with difficult decisions, either choice Kazan made he would lose. He and many others at the time were forced into making a choice between their livelihood, and their convictions, there was ‘no road between’. It was a choice that would leave them as scarred and affected as our nation today, yet unlike our nation, they made a choice and demonstrated to the world that they were not afraid to reveal who they truly were. Refusing to co-operate with the Committee would have surely meant the end of Kazan’s filmmaking career, and those closest to him know he was nothing if not a filmmaker, which is why, in the end we believe Kazan did what he did because of the more tolerable of the two alternatives that were both painful, and some may say morally wrong.
Kazan also made it clear that while de did indeed join the Communist Party, after several meetings, he was left with an ‘abiding hatred of Communist philosophy’. With this in mind it can be said that Kazan acted, in part, out of conviction. There was nothing venal about it as critics suggest. As a man who became disillusioned with Communism and then disgusted by its methods, it would have been wrong for him to have sacrificed the career he loved in defence of the very ideology he had grown to hate. Kazan is correct to value equality and individual rights, and as a nation how can we claim to fight for a democracy and the rights to exist as a nation if we do not respect Kazan’s right to have, and act on, his own opinions? We can learn from his example as a victim of a conflict to respect free will, for if we don’t are we truly any different to those who destroyed lives in the name of a cohesive and ideologically impenetrable America?
The public has always drawn for many parallels between Kazan and former friend and playwright, Arthur Miller, who unlike Kazan, refused to testify to HUAC, is seen by people to be like his ‘hero’ John Procter in his play The Crucible. However, while Miller’s willingness for self-sacrifice is commendable and demonstrated to the public what is really important in that he refused to yield to corrupt morals during the heat of battle, it is also equally as important to learn from this that not everyone responds to conflicts in the same way. A different response by Kazan, in a similar situation to Miller, does not necessarily warrant the title of ‘traitor’. Kazan is not Miller, nor is he modern America’s John Proctor, and while he may have initially had the strength to refuse to name names, he like the rest of us, fell prey to a greater power.
If we are truly honest with ourselves, if in the same situation as Kazan most would have betrayed their friends and loved ones if it meant saving themselves, for survival is always the strongest instinct. And although there will be some, like Miller and his Proctor, who are strong enough to withstand the immense heat of conflict, the majority will bend under pressure, for true heroes are rare. While it is vital to learn from people like Miller, his example showing the importance of retaining our morals in times of madness, it is equally as important to learn from victims like Kazan, who demonstrated the need to define where they stood by making a choice. We sit here today, refusing to acknowledge the great work of a Hollywood artist, demonstrating to ourselves and the world that we have not learnt from any of those examples and are therefore doomed to repeat the same mistakes when conflict is encountered once more. However, it is not too late to change, we can still learn and grow as a nation due to the victims in the 1950s who showed us what is really important. We can redeem ourselves from the guilt and shame by improving the way we deal with conflict so that we may be proud to call ourselves Americans once more.